These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical blood pressure measurement verification when comparing a Tensoval duo control device with a mercury sphygmomanometer in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation.
    Author: Farsky S, Benova K, Krausova D, Sirotiaková J, Vysocanova P.
    Journal: Blood Press Monit; 2011 Oct; 16(5):252-7. PubMed ID: 21914986.
    Abstract:
    AIM: The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of blood pressure measurements in patients with atrial fibrillation using simultaneous measurements by a mercury sphygmomanometer and an electronic device Tensoval duo control, produced by Hartmann-Rico, with dual control of the measurements (oscillometric and auscultation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 255 patients were examined at five clinics using two simultaneous measurements with a time interval of at least 3 min. The measurement accuracy analysis was carried out using a paired t-test, at several levels, throughout the whole group of patients, by considering the patient's sex and age and using a standard or larger cuff. Differences between both methods in absolute values were categorized into one of four bands (< 5, < 10, < 15 mmHg and more). Analyses according to the location of participating clinics and higher versus lower pulse rate during examination were also carried out. RESULTS: For systolic blood pressure, the difference of the measured values between the mercury and duo control device was on average 0.1 mmHg [standard deviation = 4.7 (not significant)]. For diastolic blood pressure, the difference in measured values was on average -0.7 mmHg [standard deviation = 4.7, P < 0.05]. The values of diastolic blood pressure measured using duo control were on average 0.7 mmHg higher than the values measured using the mercury sphygmomanometer, whereas in the subgroup using the standard cuff the difference was on average -1.1 mmHg. Subanalyses related to sex, age, location of participating clinics and pulse value higher or lower than 60 bpm did not reveal significant differences. CONCLUSION: Measuring blood pressure using an electronic device with a dual control of measurement provides accurate results even in the case of absolute arrhythmia, such as atrial fibrillation. Minimum differences in the values of diastolic blood pressure are clinically insignificant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]